Gauhati High Court
Deba Kumar Borah vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 5 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010130662022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4436/2022
DEBA KUMAR BORAH
S/O. LT. GANESH CH. BORAH, R/O. BORKHA BALICHAPORI, P.O.
HATIGORH BALICHAPORI, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785101.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, AGRICULTURE
DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
ASSAM
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22.
3:THE DIST. AGRICULTURE OFFICER
SIVASAGAR
DIST. SIVASAGAR.
4:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE
FOR APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND BEING REP. BY THE
CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 05-08-2022
Heard Ms. K Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D
Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 as well as Ms. R Borah,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
This is the 2nd round of litigation pertaining to the petitioner's application
for compassionate appointment. The petitioner had submitted an application for
compassionate appointment due to the death of his father on 22.07.2004.
The District Level Committee (DLC) had recommended the case of the
petitioner in its meeting minutes dated 27.04.2015. The State Level Committee
(SLC) vide its meeting minutes dated 28.12.2015 rejected the petitioner's
application for compassionate appointment, on the ground that he had
submitted his application after the prescribed time period of one year. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 1594/2016 which was disposed of vide
order dated 20.04.2016 as follows:
"In Achyut Ranjan Das Vs State of Assam reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674,
this Court had held that all pending cases seeking appointment on
compassionate ground should be considered as a onetime measure. Since DLC
had recommended the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on
the ground of acute financial hardship, Court is of the view that SLC ought to
have considered the case of the petitioner as recommended by the DLC as a
onetime measure. That being the position, impugned decision of the SLC dated
28.12.2015 in respect of the petitioner is hereby set aside and quashed. Matter
Page No.# 3/3
is remanded back to the SLC for a fresh decision in the case of the petitioner on
its own merit. Let such decision be taken within a period of 3 (three) months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
A reading of the above portion of the order of the Court makes it
discernable that the reason for rejecting the petitioner's case by the SLC, due to
delay in the submission of his application was not accepted by the Court and
there was a direction to the SLC to reconsider it on merit.
In the aforesaid circumstance, when the matter was again placed before
the SLC in its meeting on 08.12.2016, it stood rejected by the SLC, by
reiterating that there was a delay of 6 (six) years in making the application.
When there is a Court judgment stating that the ground of delay in rejecting the
application was not accepted, with a further direction to reconsider it on merit,
the rejection of the same, on the ground of delay again, is prima facie in
violation of the order dated 20.04.2016 in WP(C)/1594/2016.
Mr. D Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the writ
petition has been filed after 5½ years from the date of the impugned meeting
held by the SLC on 08.12.2016. Accordingly, the same should be dismissed due
to delay and laches.
On the prayer of the petitioner's counsel, list the matter after a week.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
